December 15, 2009

"It certainly was intrusive and constituted a statutory nuisance. It was clearly of a very disturbing nature and it was also compounded by the duration — this was not a one-off, it went on for hours at a time. It is further compounded by the frequency of the episode, virtually every night."

I remember my honeymoon night when Mrs. Hoosier wondered why I was wearing earplugs and noseplugs. I told her there were two things I couldn't stand. The sound of a woman screaming and the smell of burning rubber.

This reminds me when my brother used to live above the spanking lesbians. Every Saturday afternoon they would have a loud spanking party which I thought was totally hot until I actually saw the participants.

This is completely unnecessary. I have my sex partner's sounds of satisfaction saved on my Ipod which I wear during sex with or without her. She is prohibited from providing any ad lib at this point. We are a nation of laws God dammit! Britain is apparently the wild west, devoid of any civilization.

I had constant problems with the bed and my upstairs neighbor which after reading this account I suppose I should be grateful for.

But I obtain vicarious satisfaction nonetheless.

HINT for those who live in apartments and have noise problems with neighbors, post delicately on blogs that you think your neighbor will read. I did that, not naming names of course, and soon the problem abated somewhat.

And yes! I bouncy ball is still in the offing for downstairs neighbor and HIS noise.

You should all start f*&%ing your significant others more often. It will help you get through your perceived pain of the Obama years.

It will also make you less prude and more likely to support the transformation of the GOP into a party that doesn't believe in such magical things as anti-Keynesian economics, and of course, abstinence-only education.

I just posted a comment I thought was funny and informative. And after it strangely elicited a few hostile comments, I posted another funny one. So it really doesn't appear that I'm the one with a problem, R Leonard Part 6 or whatever your name is.

Not really. I just couldn't let your moment of sheer unadulterated genius pass without comment. However, as you'll see in a few moments, I understand why your first assumption would be that you got under my skin.

"Every successive comment on this thread ... is being posted by yet another person who is very likely not having sex at that moment."

Read what you wrote carefully.

What you wrote would include you, if you didn't notice that while you were typing. The whole, "Hurrh hurrh, I'm better than you 'cause you're not getting laid because you're commenting on a blog" attack tends to work better when it's not delivered via a comment on a blog.

(And, y'know, it doesn't take an Einstein-level IQ to figure out that people don't post on the internet while they're playing hide the salami. Just in case you thought you were going to alert the world of your breakthrough discovery.)

"Which makes my supposition that they're not getting any that much more likely."

Oh, I'll freely admit that I'm not getting any at the moment. I'm not particularly uncomfortable with that and I'm not so insecure that a random fuckwit on the iternet saying, "Hurrh hurrh, you're not getting laid," bothers me in any meaningful way.

However, I know that when reaching for insults, most people go with what they know and select a line of attack that would work on them. People who make fun of other people's looks almost always do so because they themselves are insecure about their own looks, for example. In fact, the best way to figure out what line of attack will get under someone's skin is to listen to the insults that they throw around.

So, you've just revealed to everybody that you're not getting laid and that you're insecure about this.

Further, since you think that there's some sort of relationship between one's willingness to subscribe to Keynesian economic theory and the amount of fucking they do, you've revealed that not aren't you getting any at the moment, but that you don't know the first thing about sex.

This is the kind of thing that insecure teen virgins in high school do. "Hurrh hurrh, you listen to this or that band 'cause you're not gettin' any!"

So, at a guess, you're not only not getting any now, but you haven't gotten much over the course of your life and you're obviously really insecure about that.

If you don't want people to point this sort of thing out, you might not want to bring up your own inability to get laid, even indirectly.

Or maybe with regard to earlier, you're suggesting I should sweep off the desk and/or table in the primary homeschooling room and do it, right there, right then?

To understand the context of that, it's probably important to note that my DH telecommutes full-time, as do I, almost entirely. Thus, my statement is weird only in the sense of poking friendly fun at the commenter formerly known as Montana Urban Legend.

It was interesting to watch you subject a simple, light-hearted instance of jest to such detailed analysis and intensive scrutiny, Youngblood. So, in the spirit of my contrarian impulses toward wrongdoing, I'll bite at the opportunity to address whatever tendency prompted the blogress' knocks at Judith Warner earlier today.

Please allow me to explain.

I think that the best writing is the most honest, and the most honest writing describes what you've experienced personally. So in the spirit of getting personal and moving away from the mental masturbation that your arguments by assertion have devolved into, why don't we just resolve this in as straightforward a manner as possible? Now, here is what you said, and below it follows my response:

"Oh, I'll freely admit that I'm not getting any at the moment. I'm not particularly uncomfortable with that and I'm not so insecure that a random fuckwit on the iternet saying, "Hurrh hurrh, you're not getting laid," bothers me in any meaningful way.

However, I know that when reaching for insults, most people go with what they know and select a line of attack that would work on them. People who make fun of other people's looks almost always do so because they themselves are insecure about their own looks, for example. In fact, the best way to figure out what line of attack will get under someone's skin is to listen to the insults that they throw around.

So, you've just revealed to everybody that you're not getting laid and that you're insecure about this."

I got laid this weekend, Youngblood, barely three days ago.

So the challenge now becomes this: When was the last time you got any?

Of course, I'll admit to being insecure about not getting enough, not getting as much variation as I'd like, or not getting it in as sublime and visceral a manner as possible, but that's because, as a human, I like to best myself and my previous experiences. I also have been known to tend toward desires and appetites that could be contrasted to yours in a manner similar to the contrast between a five star restaurant and McDonalds, respectively. Now, I'm not putting your tastes down, mind you. I'm just pointing out how mundane and easily gratified you seem to come across in this sense.

And yet, I subscribe to the quaint notion that my willingness to seek novelty and sublimity in the visceral realm is related to my desire to satisfy an equally profound intellectual itch. But I'll leave it to you to decide the significance of that.

Of course, the fact that you couldn't see any of this as unrelated to prudishness and the desire to legitimize the bullshit proposition of abstinence-only education might reflect on your intellectual urges, as well. Or perhaps you just read too much into something you felt like taking much more personally than I would have. And that is pretty interesting given the relationship that you imagine exists between a willingness to make a joke and some sort of psychological insecurity regarding the subject matter of that joke.

Now, what I was saying was that the relationship between rejecting Keynesianism and embracing abstinence-only education isn't causal, but correlational. The common cause of both of those things, however, is stupidity. And as for the relationship between stupidity and sexlessness, well, see above.

And while possibly off-topic, I should point out -- given the frequency with which the topic of health care has been raised lately -- that sex is good for one's health generally. Perhaps that's a point you can take less defensively than you might were we to ponder the more specific connection between sexuality and intelligence -- or as I would call it, one's "intellectual health". But that's also up to you.

Some random douchebag on the internet said that I copped out! Oh no, what am I going to do!

Actually, I'm not going to explain how nearly every sentence in your comment confirmed what I already knew, but I will give you a free clue.

Last night, I suggested that you were projecting your own insecurities into others. While many people engage in that kind of behavior, not everybody does. It was a crap shoot on my part and I played the odds.